Introduction
At first glance, global history and micro-history appear irreconcilably disjunctive in their concerns, scope, and methodology . Is it possible to bring global and micro-history into a productive engagement? If so, which streams in these sub-disciplines might be relevant or open to such an interaction? What might be the theoretical and methodological implications of such an engagement? These questions present the central concern of this essay: to identify the significant opportunities that arise from combining the global historical perspective with micro-analysis. We would argue that it is possible to overcome the binary division between global and local by combining micro-analysis with a spatially aware approach. We propose to use the term âmicro-spatial historyâ to refer to this combination.
This essay begins by (re)defining âglobalâ and âmicroâ from the perspective of their interaction. It then moves to an exploration of how the perspective of micro-spatial history relates to periodisation and conceptualisations of time . The final section addresses the potential of micro-spatial history for labour studies in particular. We close by framing this approach as an alternative perspective on global history.
The âGlobalâ and the âSpatialâ
The move away from Euro-centrism and nation-based histories, which defines the field of global and world history as a whole, has produced a fundamental reorientation of historiography and of the historianâs craft during recent decades. 1 However, as the field expanded and became institutionalised, new conceptualisations and practices of global history have been included in the discipline, while the debate on its epistemology has lagged behind. Scholars have recently highlighted the conflicting nature of some of the approaches within the field. 2 Lynn Hunt, for example, has contrasted the âtop-downâ approach of macro-analytical and economics-driven global history with the âbottom-upâ perspective that defines globalisation as âa series of transnational processes in which the histories of diverse places become connected and interdependentâ. 3 From a different angle, Angelika Epple has insisted on the distinction between global histories that stand in the tradition of universal history and seek to cover the whole world, and those which are influenced by the spatial turn and conceive space as âsocially constructed and not as a geographical factâ. 4 Partly overlapping with these interpretations, we contend here that the most important divide within the field of global history exists between the interpretation that conflates the concept of âthe globalâ with a macro-analytical perspective, and the view of the global as a spatially aware mindset and methodology . In other words, there are those who mean âanalysis on the macro levelâ when they say âglobalâ, and those who mean âconnections that stretch across cultural boundariesâ . We argue that these are not complementary but mutually exclusive alternatives. Consequently, after a brief exploration of the limitations of the macro-analytical version of global history, we provide an epistemological basis for our alternative vision.
For the purposes of this essay, we define the macro-analytical approach as the perspective by which the researcher predetermines the categories, spatial units, and periodisations that shape the topic of research, as opposed to seeing these as emerging from within specific historical processes and as the products of the agency of historical actors. For example, the macro-analytical approach might imply fitting the heterogeneous datasets and practices yielded by the sources into standardised taxonomies, prioritising continuities across space, and establishing teleological connections between events across time . Within the field of global history, this approach is usually, though not exclusively, combined with a spatial focus that covers the whole planet. Some global historians build databases that span the globe, as in the case of the Collaborative for Historical Information and Analysis (CHIA), which brings together a broad number of databases organised around predetermined variables concerning population and migration, commodities, government systems and actions, climate and health . 5 Other global historians seek to reach across the globe by comparing large spatial units and civilisations âmost typically within Eurasia . In both cases, generalisations are made on the basis of qualitatively diverse phenomena, brought together through spatial units and conceptual categories constructed by the researchers themselves, with scarce attention to contextual differentiations and to the agentsâ own multiple perceptions and representations . For the same reasons, discontinuities and other connections and interpretations are often underplayed, elided, or omitted.
The focus on comparisons and relationships between macro-regions has helped to overcome traditional geographical divisions that dominate national historiographies and area studies , and revise (or âprovincialiseâ) Europeâs role in history. 6 Key works in the field illustrate the impact of this approach: Janet Abu-Lughod âs study on the formation of a world-system between 1250 and 1350, i.e. âbefore European hegemonyâ; the new visibility acquired by Central Asia , both in relation to the decisive formation of the Mongol Empire, and regarding the vast region away from any polity control that Willem van Schendel and then James C. Scott named Zomia; Andre Gunder Frankâs study on the historical centrality of Asia , and especially China ; and Kenneth Pomeranzâ âgreat divergenceâ between Chinese and European history. 7 However, the exclusive focus on the big scale also produces fundamental distortions. To begin with, it accentuates economic and political-institutional issues at the expense of social and cultural aspects, leaving little room for the study of historical agency and rendering differentiations around space, class , ethnicity , and gender barely visible. Moreover, from a spatial perspective, this approach tends to create a hierarchy between âcentreâ and âperipheryâ, relegating âthe localâ to the ranks of case studies that merely serve to illustrate the interaction of predefined factors. Therefore, the macro-historical approach also tends towards an ethnocentric perspective, albeit one that substitutes Euro-centrism with Eurasia-centrism. The exclusive focus on the global scope also usually implies the juxtaposition of contradictory insights from the secondary literature, and a move away from in-depth study of primary sources.
An alternative approach might take âthe globalâ to mean a spatially sensitive mindset. This makes the historian aware of the role of spatial dimensions in the construction of history, the ways in which multiple connections among places and temporalities construct spatiality, and the need for methodologies that overcome the local/global divide. We consider that three research strands belong to this approach, which we refer to collectively as spatial history. 8 The first strand includes studies that have sought to deconstruct the idea of the nation state as a homogeneous and ânaturalâ object, either by historicising its formation and ideologiesâfocusing on cross-border economic and cultural exchanges âor by exploring the tension between centralising projects of territorial state-building and sub-national spatial units. 9 The second strand, the ânew imperial historiesâ, have focused on the intra- and inter-imperial circulation of individuals , objects, ideas, and imaginaries , and have questioned the centre/periphery model by showing the limits of imperial governmentality , the impact of colonies on the metropole , and independent connections among the colonies themselves. 10 The third strand includes studies that have explicitly addressed the connection between âthe localâ and âthe globalâ, and in some cases have revealed the need to overcome the very local/global divide. 11
Such approaches, in connection with the growing awareness of the role of spatiality in history referred to as the âspatial turnâ, characterise the majority of publications in the field of global history. 12 However, they are largely under-represented in surveys of the discipline, perhaps because their fragmented nature and lack of strong epistemological foundations make their contributions to broader historiographical issues less visible. 13 Indeed, most of t...